Archive for the ‘The Model’ Category

I had recently been exposed to a film story called “Blade Runner 4049.” Though I found the story overly complex, its vision of our future is not that unusual in contemporary fiction. I particularly recall from the movie an area called “San Diego” that had become a huge dump and salvage yard for the Los Angeles metropolis. The piles of junk went on for miles and miles in all directions. It was also pointed out that there were no living trees in the environment. It was noted that at a “rebel” outpost, a dead tree had been kept standing using steel cables.

The Blade Runner story is a “loose adaptation” of a story by writer Philip K. Dick. Philip is considered an important science fiction writer. Born in 1928, he was influenced by the somewhat older sci-fi writers of the pulp days, such as Hubbard and Heinlein, but also the “beat” writers like Jack Kerouac. He died at only 53 under circumstances that remain poorly understood. He was a drug user, that is for sure.

In Dick’s book, the dystopia evident on the West Coast was brought about by war. In the movie this is not mentioned, except for a reference to a “high radiation” area near Las Vegas. In both stories, androids apparently designed for robotic tasks (I don’t believe it) acquire their own sense of humanity and wish to have equal rights with humans and an end to the control programming. Science fiction writers who have gone down this road seem to be of a mind that something like this could happen. They don’t try to understand why. The difference for me is that I now know why. The design and manufacture of human-like androids would be seen as a dangerous and stupid activity by anyone who understood the likely spiritual outcome of it. The androids in the film, called “replicants,” would be even more susceptible to this problem, as they are almost totally biological.

Bicycling downtown through the riverside park, I noticed a large stand of dead trees that has always been there, but seemed unusually gloomy with no spring foliage to offset the grayness. And I thought, “this is the Land of the Dead Trees.” And so I began to formulate the starting point of a story.

I am incapable – even if I wanted to – of writing an ordinary fiction story. I have been exposed to too much actuality that is much stranger than most “fiction” written these days. The trick would be to start with how things are now and somehow show how the situation could be improved.

That leads to Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” which employed a similar technique. But I have no use for his time traveler. I can simply assume a viewpoint of some future time and “look back” to now.

While the political scene continues to percolate, and for the most part is not being covered by any reliable information source, I have been advocating for a more workable model for understanding human life.

I sent a little missive to the email address for this project. I warned them that this whole line of reasoning could turn out to be very unwise. They responded the next day with one sentence: “Please never write to us again.”

If the brain is not actually what produces human consciousness, then reverse engineering it will just get you a much better robot.

If human consciousness is immortal, then why don’t we just remember how to make better robots? It’s got to be in someone’s memory somewhere.

The people putting up the money for this project should be aware of these two points. So what is their honest reason for supporting this project? I invite your comments on the matter. (Comments are, however, reviewed by me before posting.)

Most recently my head has been buried in matters related to computer programming.

So why this waxing philosophic?

It is time – past time really – to take a new look at the world around us.

Programming languages are based on certain philosophic principles.

When you write programs for the purpose of understanding how to do it, you run into these principles.

If you have prior philosophic training, you may find these principles interesting, rather than just annoying or dogmatic.

Objects

In programming we have this term “object.” It means “an instance of a class.” If that doesn’t clarify things for you, I don’t blame you. But I’m going to keep this light; I’m not going to resort to my Webster’s. A “class” is a pattern for an object. Like a gene is a pattern for a protein. An “instance” is an actual example of something created from a class. A person is an “instance” of his genetics, in this sense. And the browser window you are reading this in is an instance of the various classes that were specifically designed to make browser windows. The “browser program” defines the process, as a series of steps, for creating and working with a browser window.

Processes

We usually think of an object as a thing that doesn’t “change” unless a process acts upon it. This is a convenient and workable way of thinking, but at its core it is flawed. If the objects all around us – including us – were not in a constant state of change, they would all disappear. In macro terms, we are constantly changing position in every frame of reference except our own. And in micro terms, we now know that atoms and subatomic particles are, in fact, in constant motion.

Thus from the point of view of a human in material existence, it even requires a process of some kind for objects to appear to remain the same. Without some sort of continuing process, an object would vanish as soon as the process creating it finished. This actually happens in programming.

For example, for my systems analysis class I wrote a little program that simulates how a grocery checkout system works. When the clerk holds an item over the scanner, the scanner detects the bar code of the item and sends it to a database. The database responds with data about the item, which the system temporarily stores in an ITEM object. This data is then inspected and processed, if necessary (does the item need to be weighed? etc.), and when that is done, the item data is copied over to the INVOICE object, and the ITEM object is destroyed. The ITEM object does not appear again until a new item is scanned, and the process is repeated.

Physically, a shopping basket is being emptied of items, which are being handled, one-by-one by the cashier, and are then put into a shopping bag. So, the physical items simply get handled and moved to a new location, while the logical ITEMS get created, inspected, and destroyed over and over.

In both cases, we are talking about process. But for me, the life cycle of an ITEM in a checkout program really brought it home for me. The continued existence of ANY OBJECT depends on a continuing process. You could even call an object a process.

Spirit

An example of this problem is the attitude of science to the concept of spirit.

Academically trained writers have trouble with spirit. They reason that, since the spirit has no physical properties, it could not rightly be said to “exist.”

I stood in my kitchen one day not long ago, just after reading such a discussion, and watched the wind blowing around the bushes and trees outside. And I thought, “spirit is like the wind.” After all, I realized later, the word comes from a word for “breath.”

And certainly, no one would argue that “wind” doesn’t exist! But “wind” is a name for a process. The process involves the movement of air from an area of higher pressure to an area of lower pressure. We don’t study wind and rain as “things” (I hope). We study them as processes. And that is really the only way to study spirit.

Everything is a process

But according to my earlier discussion, what, in fact, is NOT a process?

Hm.

The postulate of an “unchanging object” is in fact a matter of mere intellectual convenience. Within certain frames of reference, or rules of play if you want to use a game analogy, certain objects can be thought of as non-changing unless acted upon by a process that changes them. But this is simply intellectually convenient. It is not, ultimately, the truth of what is going on.

The truth is that everything is a process. Some processes are relatively insignificant in most games, and can be ignored. Others are more significant. But to overlook this truth is to make a major error.

Particle physics has had two major approaches.

One approach involves creating a very small space in which a lot of energy is added in. This tends to “expose” processes that are normally very private. In this way they have discovered “particles” with very short lifetimes that normally are created and destroyed inside of other particles.

The other approach has been to create a very small space in which a lot of energy is drained out (usually by cooling). The matter inside this space tends to simplify, or act more like it would under “ideal” conditions. You get superconductivity, superfluidity and other phenomena that indicate that the various processes in matter start to cease to interfere with each other, or in fact can be “turned off.”

However, this is nothing, in my mind, compared to the various experiments in what we currently call the “paranormal” during which “solid objects” have been observed to appear and disappear (materialize and dematerialize) according to the will of someone with “psychic powers.”

Scientific study of spiritual phenomena

If science is willing to entertain the possibility – as they have had to do in particle physics – that the subject they are studying is basically a process and not an “object,” then we may have an entrance point to the problem of how to study the spirit.

Particle physicists are now well aware that what they are basically studying is a process, and that what they are perceiving are the effects of this process. When asked to give a name to this process, they usually come up with “nature.” They could have just as easily come up with “god” or “spirit.” Conceptually, there is really very little difference. The main difference is that “nature” is conceived to be a totally unbiased agent of change, whereas “god” is considered to have attitudes about things. I think, though, if we really looked into it, we would find that “nature” also has attitudes about things.

If spirit is best thought of as a process, then the only real question is to what extent “spirit” and “nature” are equivalent concepts. To the extent that they are (surprise!) science has really been studying spirit all along! And spiritualists have also really been studying nature all along.

While the spiritualists are ready to concede this point, the scientists, for the most part, are not. The path to such a concession could be – and I hope it is – shorter than previously thought.

In engineering and science, objects of study or design are called systems. This is a very general word that you have probably seen used in expressions such as: “computer systems,” “the solar system,” “star systems,” “power systems,” “weather systems,” etc.

As the social sciences have moved towards engineering paradigms, they have also used this concept in their work. So, not only can you have a “nervous system,” you could also have a “habit system,” an “economic system,” or a “political system.”

Engineering and the sciences rely on a feature of physical and biological systems that they have noticed: predictability. Prediction is a big part of human life and survival in general, so there is little wonder that the sciences would be concentrating on technologies of prediction. One such technology is computer simulation. But for computer simulation to work, the system being simulated must first be turned into a mathematical model. Thus, this term – used with this meaning – has also entered the modern vocabulary.

Models

In this discussion, we don’t need to take up the technical details of how models are constructed. I just want to go over how they are used, and how we tend to use them without even thinking about it.

Ordinary people use models all the time, but don’t always call them that. The rules for polite conversation could be considered a model. The rules for impolite conversation could be another model. A word could be considered a model for what it represents, though it would be more correct to call the definition of the word the model, and the word just the name for the model.

Broadly, a model is our concept of something. Take evil. One person’s model for evil could be “the work of the Devil.” Another person could see evil as the result of operating on disastrously incorrect data. A third person could see evil as the result of accidents or mistakes.

When you ask these three people “what should be done about evil in the world?” you will get three very different answers. What you should really ask them first is: “What do you think causes evil in the world? Then, they’d give you their models. Their answers to the other question would probably make sense relative to the model each was using.

Thus, the decision-making process can be greatly influenced by the model being used for the system that is being discussed. For good communication and better understanding, we want these models openly stated. Secret models will cause trouble.

The Human Problem; the Human Model

Is the human a problem? Many people think so. Many people can’t even understand themselves, much less their spouse, their children, their boss, or politicians. They make bad predictions based on their imperfect understandings (like: Obama will end the war in Afghanistan if he becomes president) and then regret the decisions they made based on those predictions. Most people would love to have a better understanding of “human,” and this relies, to some extent, on having a better model for “human being.”

Body-Brain Model

Body

We can think of a person as just an animal body. This has worked, to some degree, in medicine. If all medicine wants to do is fix bodies, then it can do a lot based on the body model. The details of this model are incredibly complex, but the upper-level definition of this model is simple: The human is a biological machine (organism).

Mind-Body

The body model only takes us so far. Philosophers have always spoken of the mind, so we are used to talking about it, even though no one has exactly “seen” one. Medicine assumes that the mind totally resides in the brain. But this model is insufficient to account for a large variety of non-medical phenomena. Thus the work of Freud, etc., “fills out” the brain model of the mind into something more conceptual but more useful.

Though neurology, strictly speaking, continues to reject the Freudian and other concept-based mind models, the Freudian model is the basis, I have been lead to understand, for the whole field of modern marketing and PR. We have a nephew of Freud’s, one Edward Bernays, to “thank” for this “revolution” in the business world. You can tell, no doubt, that I doubt the wholesomeness of this development. I cannot, however, deny the fact that it has worked. And that workability gives the Freudian model some validity.

According to Freud and his followers, the mind has parts. The neurologists have tried to map these parts to locations in the brain. But the psychologists and others don’t care about that. They just want a model that will predict human behavior better.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics

NASA remote-controlled work robot.

Computer scientists, spurred on by science fiction writers and god knows what else, have always been interested in the possibility that a computer could be programmed to “act more human.” This is artificial intelligence. In its more limited application, all AI is trying to do is to get machines to figure out how to learn. Now, strictly speaking, all animals can learn, not just humans. But, this has been one of the AI goals.

Another direction for AI has been the subject of human replacement. In some situations, it has been argued, a robot could do a better job than a human. This might be because a machine could be built to withstand environmental factors that would be fatal to humans. Or it might be because the machine would not “get scared” like a human might, or might not “get tired” or “get bored.” Though much of this work has led to machines with human-like body capabilities, there has been another branch of this work that has gone in the direction of care-giving and education. In these applications, emotional awareness, even emotional expression, is desirable. But how do you get a machine to learn human emotions? Believe me, folks; they are attempting this!

Human look-alike robot.

Remote-controlled Robots

So far, the biggest advances have been made in the field of remote-controlled robotics. A recent example, as ominous as it is, is the drone bomber. But there have been many such devices designed, built and used. So we know their model is workable.

The high-level parts of this model are diagrammed below.

Basic remote control model.

They consist of:

1. The robot as a machine only. This would correspond to the human body, alive but unanimated.

2. The local machine control system. This would correspond to the brain. It is essentially an electronic computer. It runs on “firmware” (semi-permanent software).

3. A communication link. We have no name for this in any human model, except maybe for some mystical models which speak of a “silver thread.”

4. A remote control console. This would correspond to the mind. Note that the mind runs on a combination of software and input from a control person. Also note that the mind contains a copy of the brain’s “firmware.” Ideally, every single perception, command, action, and result is recorded for possible later analysis and software improvement. Thus, the mind also needs a memory system.

5. The control console operator. Not pictured in the diagram, this is in some ways the most important part of this model. This guy is supposed to be in control of the entire system, determining its every waking move.

The following diagram gives a more fanciful depiction of this model.

Remote-controlled fighting monster from Japanese magazine.

Practical Considerations

There is still something missing in this model. What if something happens to the console operator? What if he has to go to the bathroom? What if somebody sneaks up behind him and bops him on the head? What if he gets so emotionally involved in the activity that he passes out? What if the hardware is damaged?

For a “mission critical” application, the console operator needs some sort of backup system. By empirical observation it has been found that such a backup system exists. It is more or less attached to the body. Its exact nature is not totally known. Conceptually, it can be thought of as another console and console operator, but one designed to never go offline. This console operator is not responsible for any high-level decision-making. It is designed only to protect the hardware in the event of loss of higher-level control. In exchange for not being “brainy” this operator must stay alert 24-7. It monitors all vital body functions. It sends warnings when the bladder or gut are full, or when the stomach is empty. It has certain override powers in the event that the higher level does not respond to repeated warnings.

In general, this operator has capabilities similar to the high-level operator. But it plays (usually) a subordinate role in the system. Its console also has recording capabilities, but they do not necessarily include all data from the higher level operator. The higher-level operator has access to all the data in the lower-level console, but it is protected. Access is only granted under certain special conditions.

So there is a certain amount of autonomy between the senior and junior control systems. This is a significant advance over a one-controller system, but is gained at some cost.

A Proposed Model

In my studies I have learned of a more workable model for a human being, which is illustrated above.

My illustration uses terms for the main parts of this model, that I learned from my studies, as well as some more traditional terms. I cannot guarantee that all these terms are correctly matched. If you read this and see obvious mistakes, let me know!

Here is the list in text form, expanded to include the engineering terms mentioned above:

Thetan; spirit; senior console operator; higher self.

Analytical mind; senior control console; higher mind.

Control beams; communication link.

Genetic entity; junior console operator; lower self.

Reactive mind; junior control console; subconscious mind.

Brain; embedded controller.

Body; machine.

I will not take up the ramifications of this model in this article. But needless to say, at the expense of some increased complexity, it predicts a far broader range of observed human behavior and capability than does a previous over-simplified models.